đŸ”Ŧ Chimeric Detective Report

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimeric Contigs in Viral Metagenomic Assembly

28
Contigs Analyzed
9
Contigs Split
18
Contigs Preserved
0.61
Mean Confidence

📊 Summary Visualizations

Chimera Type Distribution

Confidence Score Distributions

Decision Summary

Evidence Types Overview

🔍 Detailed Analysis Results

Contig ID Chimera Type Confidence Decision Breakpoint Evidence Types Explanation
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1539 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,539, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2153 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,153, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2324 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,324, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2730 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,730, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2892 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,892, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1489 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,489, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2600 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,600, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 562 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 562, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 739 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 739, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1047 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,047, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 442 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 442, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1239 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,239, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1642 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,642, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 379 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 379, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1373 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,373, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 250 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 250, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1772 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,772, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3074 coverage_discontinuity, kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,074, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1914 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,914, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 219 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 219, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 194 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 194, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3598 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,598, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1765 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,765, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2962 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,962, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4554 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,554, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4341 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,341, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1345 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,345, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4837 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,837, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3886 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,886, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2825 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,825, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3727 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,727, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3331 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,331, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2263 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,263, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3675 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,675, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3114 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,114, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 546 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 546, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2402 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,402, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2552 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,552, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4225 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,225, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1556 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,556, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 366 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 366, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2637 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,637, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1442 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,442, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1288 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,288, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1572 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,572, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 457 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 457, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1681 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,681, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_005 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 334 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 334, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_005 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 242 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 242, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1140 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,140, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1846 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,846, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1914 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,914, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 541 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 541, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 769 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 769, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 957 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 957, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_005 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 2143 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,143, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 346 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 346, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1039 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,039, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2333 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,333, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1685 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,685, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1539 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,539, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 547 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 547, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1352 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,352, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2016 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,016, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1413 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,413, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 951 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 951, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1258 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,258, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 260 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 260, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2139 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,139, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 624 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 624, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1791 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,791, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1150 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,150, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 556 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 556, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_007 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 344 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 344, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2647 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,647, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2835 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,835, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1630 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,630, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 638 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 638, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1568 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,568, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1030 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,030, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1823 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,823, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 842 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 842, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2345 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,345, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1237 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,237, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1962 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,962, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2430 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,430, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 451 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 451, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2759 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,759, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_007 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 3326 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,326, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1481 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,481, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3023 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,023, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1773 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,773, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2263 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,263, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2521 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,521, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_007 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 266 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 266, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1176 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,176, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1390 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,390, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2931 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,931, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2025 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,025, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 268 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 268, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 384 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 384, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3716 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,716, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3462 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,462, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2967 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,967, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3388 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,388, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 398 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 398, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2403 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,403, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3645 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,645, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 830 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 830, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4284 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,284, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1818 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,818, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 669 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 669, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2845 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,845, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3153 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,153, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1313 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,313, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1628 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,628, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2599 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,599, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 532 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 532, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4649 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,649, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4174 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,174, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3211 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,211, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1221 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,221, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1739 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,739, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1447 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,447, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1069 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,069, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3976 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,976, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4493 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,493, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2035 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,035, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4019 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,019, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3844 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,844, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2612 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,612, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 235 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 235, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4301 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,301, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2434 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,434, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3420 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,420, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1287 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,287, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1927 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,927, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4474 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,474, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2060 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,060, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3986 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,986, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3235 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,235, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1818 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,818, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1191 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,191, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3751 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,751, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2662 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,662, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 953 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 953, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3890 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,890, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3063 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,063, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 757 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 757, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2247 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,247, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2833 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,833, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3393 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,393, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4292 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,292, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2328 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,328, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1053 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,053, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1351 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,351, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4172 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,172, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3650 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,650, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2716 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,716, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.42) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3153 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,153, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2167 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,167, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 624 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 624, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4080 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,080, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 552 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 552, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 203 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 203, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4856 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,856, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3973 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,973, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 521 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 521, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 782 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 782, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2152 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,152, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3776 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,776, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 5020 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,020, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1573 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,573, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1923 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,923, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3659 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,659, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2686 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,686, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 945 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 945, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 5427 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,427, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4252 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,252, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1760 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,760, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 5179 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,179, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2428 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,428, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 6257 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,257, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2926 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,926, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_012 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 3522 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,522, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1092 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,092, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 5330 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,330, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.42) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4425 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,425, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3462 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,462, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_012 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 330 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 330, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2315 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,315, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 5918 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,918, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.49) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 4111 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,111, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3224 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,224, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3174 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,174, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1263 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,263, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4543 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,543, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 631 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 631, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 6139 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,139, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1406 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,406, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2581 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,581, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1300 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,300, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 457 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 457, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1051 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,051, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 937 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 937, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1695 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,695, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3048 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,048, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1189 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,189, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2443 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,443, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 845 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 845, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3272 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,272, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2301 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,301, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 638 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 638, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2852 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,852, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_014 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 3558 coverage_discontinuity, kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,558, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3425 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,425, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 304 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 304, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 250 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 250, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3173 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,173, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1767 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,767, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 745 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 745, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1515 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,515, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2677 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,677, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1407 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,407, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2956 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,956, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1868 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,868, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 668 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 668, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3219 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,219, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 970 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 970, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2171 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,171, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4046 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,046, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 727 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 727, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_015 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 312 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 312, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3996 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,996, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1182 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,182, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4317 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,317, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2424 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,424, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1345 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,345, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 554 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 554, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2798 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,798, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1458 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,458, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3850 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,850, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3508 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,508, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1654 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,654, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3126 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,126, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2361 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,361, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2811 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,811, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4543 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,543, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 463 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 463, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4906 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,906, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2570 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,570, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2282 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,282, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3038 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,038, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3678 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,678, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4449 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,449, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4210 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,210, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1086 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,086, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 852 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 852, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2430 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,430, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3048 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,048, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3767 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,767, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1178 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,178, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2849 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,849, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1699 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,699, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2726 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,726, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3626 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,626, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1369 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,369, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3464 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,464, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2361 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,361, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1852 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,852, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4022 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,022, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2667 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,667, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 731 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 731, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2276 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,276, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3302 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,302, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3175 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,175, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1437 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,437, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2155 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,155, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2547 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,547, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2932 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,932, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3827 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,827, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 642 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 642, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_017 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 269 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 269, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 355 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 355, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2999 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,999, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 257 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 257, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2011 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,011, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1303 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,303, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2330 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,330, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1186 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,186, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2194 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,194, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 864 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 864, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 736 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 736, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1652 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,652, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2455 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,455, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1468 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,468, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 212 coverage_discontinuity, kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 212, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 474 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 474, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2767 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,767, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 960 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 960, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 620 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 620, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 369 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 369, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2242 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,242, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2567 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,567, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 776 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 776, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 524 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 524, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1833 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,833, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1191 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,191, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1961 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,961, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2452 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,452, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 440 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 440, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1499 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,499, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1549 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,549, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1674 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,674, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 629 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 629, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 814 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 814, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2328 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,328, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2080 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,080, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 164 kmer_composition_change, coverage_discontinuity, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 164, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2818 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,818, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1315 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,315, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1271 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,271, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1304 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,304, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1516 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,516, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 855 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 855, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 676 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 676, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1073 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,073, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2115 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,115, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2543 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,543, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1726 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,726, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1846 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,846, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2728 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,728, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 334 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 334, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2007 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,007, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 246 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 246, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 1910 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,910, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2442 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,442, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2562 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,562, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2068 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,068, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2319 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,319, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1179 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,179, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 942 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 942, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1516 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,516, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1736 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,736, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 636 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 636, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 448 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 448, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 858 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 858, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1050 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,050, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2254 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,254, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2419 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,419, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2644 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,644, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2729 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,729, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 211 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 211, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2145 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,145, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1891 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,891, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1390 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,390, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1650 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,650, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1267 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,267, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 763 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 763, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1740 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,740, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 764 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 764, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1345 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,345, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 935 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 935, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1577 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,577, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1281 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,281, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1073 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,073, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 224 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 224, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1656 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,656, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 450 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 450, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 509 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 509, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 350 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 350, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 194 coverage_discontinuity, kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 194, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.16) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 743 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 743, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 361 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 361, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1078 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,078, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 941 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 941, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1624 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,624, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 534 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 534, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1179 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,179, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1493 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,493, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1377 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,377, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 1805 coverage_discontinuity, kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,805, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.80.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1186 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,186, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 772 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 772, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 360 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 360, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 659 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 659, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 527 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 527, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1433 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,433, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1038 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,038, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1521 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,521, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 936 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 936, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 233 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 233, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1674 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,674, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1344 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,344, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 1833 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,833, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_001 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 870 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 870, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 697 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 697, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2071 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,071, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4753 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,753, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1917 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,917, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4649 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,649, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 762 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_004 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 367 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 367, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2020 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,020, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 603 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 603, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 817 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 817, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3121 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,121, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_007 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 3228 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,228, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2121 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,121, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1158 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,158, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 647 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 647, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3480 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,480, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2282 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,282, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1943 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,943, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2591 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,591, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3895 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,895, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1051 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,051, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3215 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,215, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3374 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,374, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3020 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,020, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1600 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,600, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1531 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,531, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1352 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,352, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_008 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 2150 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,150, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2910 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,910, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 519 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 519, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3163 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,163, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 317 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 317, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2660 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,660, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2789 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,789, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3686 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,686, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2029 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,029, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2431 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,431, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3576 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,576, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 762 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 5968 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,968, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1955 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,955, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4580 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,580, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2187 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,187, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2751 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,751, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1994 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,994, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 805 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 805, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2086 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,086, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1848 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,848, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3236 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,236, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3524 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,524, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3925 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,925, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 656 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 656, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2459 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,459, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2985 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,985, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3759 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,759, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_016 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 3658 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,658, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1155 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,155, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1747 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,747, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1955 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,955, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2857 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,857, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 766 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 766, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3120 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,120, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1462 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,462, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 525 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 525, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2344 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,344, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4042 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,042, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2123 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,123, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 973 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 973, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1630 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,630, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2067 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,067, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3093 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,093, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 891 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 891, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1341 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,341, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1270 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,270, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_016 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 259 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 259, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 389 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 389, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 439 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 439, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1570 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,570, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3243 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,243, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1990 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,990, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1206 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,206, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3950 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,950, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_018 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 241 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 241, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1707 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,707, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2320 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,320, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 353 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 353, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1860 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,860, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2719 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,719, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1054 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,054, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 681 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 681, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 551 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 551, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2469 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,469, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2038 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,038, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2633 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,633, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1157 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,157, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1566 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,566, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2238 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,238, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 189 coverage_discontinuity, kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 189, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 875 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 875, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2178 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,178, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 653 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 653, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1677 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,677, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1479 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,479, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2560 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,560, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1533 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,533, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2020 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,020, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1230 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,230, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 948 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 948, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1871 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,871, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1982 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,982, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2240 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,240, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1352 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,352, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1103 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,103, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1746 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,746, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 475 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 475, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 780 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 780, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 364 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 364, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2155 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,155, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 2845 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,845, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 877 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 877, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1021 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,021, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1710 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,710, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1078 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,078, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2733 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,733, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 215 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 215, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1212 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,212, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2370 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,370, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2803 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,803, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 591 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 591, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 162 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 162, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 821 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 821, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 665 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 665, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1428 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,428, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 1749 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,749, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2470 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,470, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1888 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,888, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2461 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,461, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3201 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,201, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3394 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,394, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1931 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,931, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4302 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,302, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2739 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,739, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3475 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,475, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2593 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,593, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4562 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,562, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 422 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 422, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3934 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,934, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4054 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,054, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1389 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,389, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1732 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,732, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1016 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,016, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3176 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,176, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4922 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,922, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2363 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,363, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2889 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,889, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 905 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 905, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1554 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,554, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2143 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,143, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1236 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,236, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 598 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 598, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 728 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 728, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3802 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,802, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3058 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,058, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 244 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 244, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3441 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,441, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 958 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 958, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 439 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 439, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1018 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,018, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 165 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 165, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1769 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,769, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 843 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 843, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 950 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 950, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4225 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,225, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 645 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 645, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2388 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,388, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 775 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 775, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3514 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,514, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3959 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,959, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 5338 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,338, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 4709 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,709, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4517 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,517, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3367 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,367, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2137 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,137, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.45) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1839 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,839, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 5685 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,685, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1590 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,590, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1720 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,720, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4920 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,920, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.46) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1342 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,342, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3265 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,265, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1147 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,147, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1996 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,996, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1492 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,492, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2902 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,902, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 5468 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,468, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2580 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,580, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
contig_009 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 3040 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,040, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3752 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,752, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2853 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,853, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 501 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 501, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 5124 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,124, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3583 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,583, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_011 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 2522 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,522, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1645 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,645, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2929 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,929, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 431 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 431, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2127 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,127, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.08) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_018 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 5128 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,128, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2897 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,897, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1482 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,482, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 910 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 910, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2741 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,741, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2509 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,509, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 326 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 326, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1189 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,189, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2066 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,066, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4749 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,749, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4305 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,305, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 311 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 311, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4852 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,852, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 669 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 669, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4486 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,486, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1561 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,561, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3944 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,944, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4367 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,367, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2659 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,659, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3247 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,247, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3528 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,528, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1410 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,410, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2862 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,862, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3061 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,061, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3375 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,375, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4243 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,243, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 545 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 545, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 887 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 887, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 937 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 937, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2543 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,543, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3824 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,824, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1808 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,808, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 4977 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,977, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4566 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,566, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2137 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,137, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_018 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 1631 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,631, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2016 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,016, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4063 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,063, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1126 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,126, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4711 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,711, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1792 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,792, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1276 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,276, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2356 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,356, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2652 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,652, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1127 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,127, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2762 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 722 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 722, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3596 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,596, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2727 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,727, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2652 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,652, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1207 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,207, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2506 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,506, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2615 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,615, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 573 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 573, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2241 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,241, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 2834 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,834, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 837 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 837, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1403 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,403, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3762 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 370 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 370, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2077 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,077, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1818 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,818, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2680 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,680, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.45) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2200 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,200, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1243 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,243, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4024 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,024, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1912 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,912, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_007 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 957 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 957, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1218 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,218, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2048 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,048, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3731 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,731, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.60.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2289 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,289, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 452 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 452, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.42) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.61.

📈 Individual Contig Details

Click on the links below to view detailed analysis for each chimeric contig:

â„šī¸ Methodology & Interpretation

Detection Methods

Chimeric contigs are detected using multiple complementary approaches:

  • Coverage Discontinuities: Sharp changes in read coverage depth
  • Sequence Composition: Changes in GC content and k-mer frequencies
  • Taxonomic Classification: Transitions between different viral/host lineages
  • Read Pair Orientation: Inconsistent paired-end read orientations

Classification Categories

  • Technical Artifacts: Assembly errors, typically split
  • PCR Chimeras: Amplification artifacts, typically split
  • Biological Recombination: Genuine recombination events, preserved
  • Provirus Integration: Virus-host integration sites, flagged

Confidence Scores

Confidence scores range from 0-1, with higher scores indicating stronger evidence for the classification. Scores above 0.8 are considered high confidence, 0.5-0.8 medium confidence, and below 0.5 low confidence.